REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1761          OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4082 of 2011)

G. Reddeiah       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.    .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The  appellant,  who  is  the  brother-in-law  of  

R. Sreenivasulu-the detenue, has  filed this appeal against the  

judgment and final order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the High  

Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in a writ of  

Habeas Corpus being Writ Petition No. 65 of 2011 whereby the  

High Court  dismissed his petition holding that  the order  of  

detention  of  R.  Sreenivasulu  passed  by  the  Collector  and  

1

District  Magistrate,  Kadapa,  Y.S.R.  District,  in  Ref.  No.  

670/M/2010 dated 12.11.2010 is not illegal.

3) Brief Facts:  

a) According to the prosecution, the detenue was found to  

be involved in felling, transporting, smuggling of red-sanders  

trees and committing theft of forest wealth in as many as eight  

times within a period of one year.  The cases registered against  

him disclose his activities.  They are:

(i) OR No. 130/2009-10- dated 22.02.2010:

On 22.02.2010, on receiving information at 06:00 a.m.,  

Forest  Range  Officer  and  Deputy  Range  Officer  Rayachoty,  

alongwith other staff proceeded to Masineni Kanuma locality  

of  Palakonda  Reserved  Forest  in  Saraswathipalli  Beat  and  

noticed 3 persons lifting  and storing red-sanders  wood and  

preparing  to  transport  the  same.   On  seeing  the  Forest  

officials, they ran away from the scene of offence and could not  

be apprehended.  Later, they were identified and one among  

them was the detenue.  Thereafter, the Forest officials seized  

30 red-sanders logs weighing 844 kgs. worth Rs.45,576/-.  An  

offence was registered against them vide P.O.R. No. 6 dated  

2

22.02.2010 under  Section  20(1)(c)(ii)  of  the  A.P.  Forest  Act,  

1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the A.P. Act”)  for  trespassing  

in Reserved Forest, under Section 20(1)(c)(iii) of the A.P. Act for  

causing  damage  by  willfully  cutting  trees  and  dragging  the  

same,  under  Section  20(1)(c)(vi)  and  (x)  of  the  A.P.  Act  for  

collection  and  removal  of  red-sanders  timber  and  under  

Section 29(2)(b) of the A.P. Act read with Rule 3 of the A.P.  

Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969 (in short  

“the Rules”) for transportation of red-sanders timber without  

permit  and  without  any  Government  Transit  Mark  and  for  

theft  of  red-sanders  timber  from  Reserved  Forest  under  

Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”)  

and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.   

(ii) OR No. 01/2010-11 dated 01.04.2010  

On 01.04.2010,  on receiving  information  at  7.30  a.m.,  

the Deputy Range Officer, Forest Beat Officers and Assistant  

Beat  Officer  proceeded  to  the  localities  in  Gudukonda  and  

Pathikona and noticed the movement of the detenue and two  

others who escaped from the scene of the offence and later the  

detenue was identified and crime was registered against him  

3

vide P.O.R. No. 16 dated 01.04.2010 under various sections of  

the A.P. Act and the Rules and also under Sections 378 and  

120B IPC.

(iii) OR No. 02/2010-11 dated 03.04.2010  

On  02.04.2010,  the  Forest  Range  Officer,  Rayachoty  

along  with  other  staff  stopped  a  vehicle  carrying  20  red-  

sanders logs.  The detenue along with two others escaped from  

the vehicle but the Forest officials apprehended the driver of  

the  vehicle  and  a  crime  was  registered  vide  P.O.R.  No.  17  

dated 03.04.2010 against them for an offence under various  

sections of the A.P. Act and the Rules and also under Sections  

378 and 120B IPC.

iv)  OR No.13/2010-11 dated  11.05.2010 and PS Crime No.  40/10

On  08.05.2010,  on  receiving  a  complaint  regarding  

smuggling  of  red-sanders  logs,  while  doing  routine  vehicle  

check, the Inspector of Police, L.R. Palli along with other staff  

stopped two vans and caught hold of four persons and seized  

red-sanders logs from the above two vehicles and on the basis  

of their information a crime was registered by Galiveedu Police  

4

Station in Crime No.  40/2010 for  an offence under  various  

sections of the A.P. Act and the Rules and also under Sections  

379 IPC against  14 accused persons in which detenue was  

shown as 12th accused.

(v) OR No. 18/2010-11 dated 23.05.2010  

On  the  intervening  night  of  22.05.2010,  the  Forest  

Officer,  Rayachoty  along  with  other  staff  caught-hold  of  

detenue along with other persons and seized 32 red-sanders  

logs weighing 794 kgs. and a crime was registered vide P.O.R.  

No. 20 dated 23.05.2010 against them under various sections  

of the A.P. Act and the Rules.

(vi) FIR No. 46/10 dated 27.05.2010 and OR No. 20/2010-11  

dated 30.05.2010

On 27.05.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural  

Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. along with  

their  staff  noticed  one  Indica  Car  followed  by  a  lorry  from  

Ragimannudivanpalli.  On seeing them, the occupants tried to  

run  away  and  the  police  chased  and  caught-hold  of  two  

persons  while  one  person  escaped.   The  lorry  was  found  

loaded  with  25  red-sanders  logs.   On  interrogation,  they  

5

informed  that  the  detenue  was  escorting  them and  he  ran  

away from the scene.  The police registered a case in FIR No.  

46/10 dated 27.05.2010 under Section 379 IPC and Section  

29A(1)  of  the  A.P.  Act  read with Rule  3 of  the  Rules.   The  

Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty also booked a case vide POR  

No. 20/2010-11 dated 30.05.2010.   

(vii) FIR No. 75/10 dated 03.10.2010 and OR No. 60/2010-11  dated 04.10.2010  

On 03.10.2010, the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Rural  

Circle and Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. along with  

forest officials proceeded to Teacher Narayana Reddy Mango  

Garden  located  at  Peddamadiga  Palli  Village,  hamlet  of  

Vongimalla and found four persons removing red-sanders logs  

from the bushes.  On seeing them, three persons escaped and  

the police could apprehend only one person who informed that  

the detenue was also involved in taking away the logs three  

times in his vehicle.  The police registered a case in Crime No.  

75/10 under Section 379 IPC and Section 29 of the A.P. Act  

read with Rule 3 of the Rules and the Forest Range Officer also  

booked a case vide POR No. 60/2010-11 dated 04.10.2010.

6

(viii) Crime No. 92/10   

On  09.10.2010,  the  Sub-Inspector  of  Galiveedu  and  

Veeraballi, C.I. L.R. Palli along with staff and panchayatdars  

while proceeding towards the forest found one Tata Sumo and  

a  Ford  Ikon  car  carrying  36  red-sanders  logs.   When  the  

occupants  tried  to  escape,  the  police  caught  hold  of  them.  

One  among  them  was  the  detenue.   The  police  seized  the  

vehicles and registered Crime No. 92 of 2010 under Section  

379 IPC and Section 29 of the A.P. Act read with Rule 3 of the  

Rules.     

(b) Thereafter, on 10.11.2010, the detenue was released on  

bail and he was immediately arrested and order of detention  

was  served  on  12.11.2010  by  the  Collector  and  District  

Magistrate, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District under Sections 3(1) and 2  

(a)  and (b)  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh Prevention of  Dangerous  

Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas,  

Immoral  Traffic  Offenders and Land Grabbers Act,  1986 (in  

short “the 1986 Act”) stating that the activities of the detenue  

are dangerous to forest wealth and forest eco-system and are  

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.   

7

(c) The  General  Administration  (Law  and  Order  II)  

Department of the Government of A.P., in G.O. Rt. No. 5657,  

dated 20.11.2010, approved the order of detention and he was  

sent to Cherlapalli Jail on 13.11.2010.  Again on 22.12.2010,  

Government  of  A.P.  confirmed  the  order  of  detention  by  

directing to continue the detention for a period of 12 months  

from the date of detention i.e. from 13.11.2010.  

(d) In January, 2011, challenging the detention order passed  

by  the  Collector  and  District  Magistrate,  Kadapa,  Y.S.R.  

District, dated 12.11.2010, the appellant herein - brother-in-

law of the detenue, filed W.P. No. 65 of 20011 before the High  

Court for issuance of writ of  Habeas Corpus.  By impugned  

order dated 08.04.2011, the High Court dismissed the petition  

holding that the order of detention is not illegal.  Aggrieved by  

the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of  

special leave petition before this Court.         

4) Heard  Mr.  A.T.M.  Rangaramanujam  learned  senior  

counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Sundaravardan, learned  

senior counsel for the State.

8

5) It is the definite stand of the State that its administration  

is not in a position to curb the illegal activities of the detenue  

under the normal procedure, who was habitually indulging in  

illicit  trespass,  cutting,  dressing  and  transporting  the  red-

sanders wood from the Reserved Forest  owned by the State  

causing  irreparable  loss  to  national  wealth.   The  Detaining  

Authority, on going through all the materials and after holding  

that the said detenue is a ‘goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the  

1986 Act passed the order of detention.   

6) Since the said detention was challenged by his brother-

in-law before the High Court and the same has been negatived  

by the High Court, let us refer certain provisions of the 1986  

Act.  Section 2(g) defines “goonda” which reads as under:-

2(g) “goonda” means a person, who either by himself of as a  member  of  or  leader  of  a  gang,  habitually  commits,  or  attempts  to  commit  or  abets  the  commission  of  offences  punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter  XXII of the Indian Penal Code;”    

Section 3 of the 1986 Act enables the Government to detain  

certain  persons  whose  activities  are  prejudicial  to  the  

maintenance of public order.  Section 3 reads as under:-

9

“3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons:- The  Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger:  dacoit,  drug-offender,  goonda,  immoral  traffic  offender  or  land-grabber that with a view to preventing him from acting  in  any  manner  prejudicial  to  the  maintenance  of  public  order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that  such person be detained.

(2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely  to  prevail  in  any  area  within  the  local  limits  of  the  jurisdiction  of  a  District  Magistrate  or  a  Commissioner  of  Police, the Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to  do, they may, by order in writing, direct that during such  period  as  may  be  specified  in  the  order,  such  District  Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as  provided in sub-Section (1), exercise the powers conferred by  the said sub-section:

Provided that the period specified in the order made by the  Government  under  this  sub-section  shall  not  in  the  first  instance, exceed three months, but the Government may, if  satisfied as aforesaid that it  is necessary so to do, amend  such order to extend such period from time to time by any  period not exceeding three months at any one time.

(3) When any order is made under this Section by an officer  mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the  fact to the Government together with the grounds on which  the order has been made and such other particulars as in  his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order  shall  remain  in  force  for  more  than twelve  days after  the  making  thereof,  unless,  in  the  meantime,  it  has  been  approved by the Government.”    

If the Government/Detaining Authority is able to satisfy that a  

person either by himself or in association with other members  

habitually commits or attempts or abets such commission of  

offence punishable under IPC, A.P. Act and the Rules subject  

1

to satisfying Section 3 of the 1986 Act, he can be detained in  

terms of the said Act.

7) The essential concept of preventive detention is that the  

detention of a person is not to punish him for something he  

has done but to prevent him from doing it.  Even, as early as  

in 1975, the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the  

procedures to be followed in view of Articles 19 and 21 of the  

Constitution.  In Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal  

& Ors.  (1975)  3  SCC  198,  the  Constitution  Bench  of  this  

Court,  on  going  through  the  order  of  preventive  detention  

under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 laid down  

various principles which are as follows:-

“…..First; merely because a detenue is liable to be tried in a  criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to  be  proceeded  against  for  preventing  him from committing  offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal  Procedure would not by itself  debar the Government  from  taking action for his detention under the Act.

Second; the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on  enlarges him on bail  and initiates  steps to prosecute him  under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first  information  report  may  be  no  bar  against  the  District  Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention.

Third; where the concerned person is actually in jail custody  at the time when an order of detention is passed against him  and is not likely to be released for a fair length of time, it  may  be  possible  to  contend  that  there  could  be  no  

1

satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the  likelihood  of  such  a  person  indulging  in  activities  which  would  jeopardize  the  security  of  the  State  or  the  public  order.

Fourth;  the  mere  circumstance  that  a  detention  order  is  passed  during  the  pendency  of  the  prosecution  will  not  violate (sic) the order.

Fifth; the order of detention is a precautionary measure.  It  is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of  a  person  based  on  his  past  conduct  in  the  light  of  the  surrounding circumstances.”  

In the light of the above principles, let us test the validity of  

the detention order issued under the 1986 Act and as affirmed  

by the High Court.

8) In the earlier part of our order, we have culled out and  

noted  8  cases  in  which  the  detenue-R.  Sreenivasulu  was  

involved  and  was  habitually  committing  forest  offences,  

particularly,  felling,  cutting  and  smuggling  of  red-sanders  

wood causing loss to national wealth.  Inasmuch as we have  

adverted to the details regarding all the 8 cases commencing  

from 22.02.2010 ending with 09.10.2010 which is reflected in  

the grounds of detention, there is no need to refer the same  

once again.  Mr. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel for  

the appellant has submitted that some of the cases have been  

1

foisted and, according to him, the relevant details furnished in  

the  grounds  of  detention  such  as  the  date  of  occurrence,  

commission of various offences both under the A.P. Act and  

the Rules and IPC, cannot be construed that his activities are  

habitual or would not affect the national forest wealth.  We are  

unable  to  accept  the  said  contention.   A  reading  of  the  

grounds  of  detention  clearly  indicate  that  the  detenue  had  

been indulging in various activities in felling and smuggling  

red-sanders and he was habitually committing the same and  

was unmindful of wastage of national forest wealth and public  

order.  It also shows that it was not a solitary or stray incident  

but continuously maintaining his activities commencing from  

22.02.2010 till 09.10.2010 in destroying the forest wealth.  It  

clearly shows that he is habitually committing these offences.  

On going through all the details relating to various offences,  

incidents and activities, we are satisfied that the conclusion of  

Detaining Authority that by invocation of normal procedure,  

the activities of the detenue cannot be controlled is acceptable.  

We also hold that Detaining Authority is well within its powers  

in passing the impugned order of detention.  Further, we are  

1

also in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court which,  

by a detailed judgment, upheld the order of detention.

9) Mr.  Rangaramanujam submitted  that  even  though  the  

detenue was arrested on 09.10.2010 and was released on bail  

on 10.11.2010, the detention order was passed on 12.11.2010,  

the aspect that the detenue was in custody till 10.11.2010 was  

neither specifically adverted to and considered in the detention  

order  nor  the  sponsoring  authority  placed  any  material  

regarding  the  same,  hence,  the  ultimate  detention  order  

passed  on  12.11.2010  cannot  be  sustained.   Before  

considering  his  objection,  it  is  useful  to  refer  the  following  

decision and principles laid down therein.

10) The incident relating to procedure to be adopted in case  

the detenue is already in custody has been dealt  in several  

cases.  In Union of India vs.  Paul Manickam and Another  

(2003) 8 SCC 342, this Court, has held as under:-

“14…..Where  detention  orders  are  passed  in  relation  to  persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the  detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their  awareness in this regard in the grounds of  detention,  the  chances of release of such persons on bail. The necessity of  keeping  such  persons  in  detention  under  the  preventive  detention  laws  has  to  be  clearly  indicated.  Subsisting  custody of the detenue by itself does not invalidate an order  

1

of his preventive detention, and the decision in this regard  must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive  detention being necessary to prevent the detenue from acting  in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to  the maintenance of  public order or  economic stability  etc.  ordinarily, it is not needed when the detenue is already in  custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to  the fact of subsisting custody of the detenue and take that  factor into account while making the order. If the detaining  authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that  there  is  likelihood  of  his  release  and  in  view  of  his  antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he  must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in  such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly  made.  Where  the  detention  order  in  respect  of  a  person  already in custody does not indicate that the detenue was  likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated. The  point was gone into detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India.  The principles were set out as follows: even in the case of a  person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed:  (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that  he is actually in custody; (2) if he has a reason to believe on  the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there  is a real possibility of his release on bail,  and (b)  that on  being  released,  he  would  in  all  probability  indulge  in  prejudicial activities;  and (3) if  it  is felt essential to detain  him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after  recording  satisfaction  in  that  regard,  the  order  would  be  valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds  of  detention  show  an  awareness  of  custody  and/or  a  possibility of release on bail.”

11) It is clear that if the Detaining Authority was aware of the  

relevant  fact,  namely,  that  he  was  under  custody  from  

09.10.2010 and he would be released or likely to be released  

or as in this case released on 10.11.2010 and if an order is  

passed after due satisfaction in that regard, undoubtedly, the  

1

order  would  be  valid.   Before  answering  this  point,  Mr.  R.  

Sundaravardan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  State  has  

brought  to  our  notice  that  the  said  objection  was  neither  

raised before the Advisory Board nor in the representation to  

the  Government  and  was  not  mentioned  in  the  grounds  of  

challenge and argued before the High Court.  He also pointed  

out that even before this Court, this ground was not raised in  

the  special  leave  petition.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  such  

objection was not raised anywhere except during the course of  

argument.  No doubt, learned senior counsel for the appellant  

by drawing our attention to Crl.M.P. No. 11504 of 2011 which  

was filed for permission to file additional documents submitted  

that the same may be considered and in the absence of such  

satisfaction  by  the  Detaining  Authority  as  reflected  in  the  

detention  order,  the  same  is  liable  to  be  quashed.   Non-

consideration of bail order would amount to non-application of  

mind. [ vide M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India & Another.  

(1990)  2  SCC 1  and  Anant  Sakharam Raut vs.  State  of  

Maharashtra and Anr. (1986) 4 SCC 771].   

1

12) As pointed out above, the said objection was not raised  

anywhere.  It is also not in dispute that the detenue was given  

adequate  opportunity  of  hearing  before  the  Advisory  Board  

and all  his grievances were addressed to by the Board and  

submitted its report.  The Government, on going through the  

entire materials including the report of the Advisory Board as  

well  as  the  representation  of  the  detenue,  considering  the  

gravity of the offence alleged against him and his habituality,  

confirmed the order of detention.   

13) The grounds of detention running into 60 pages and the  

order  of  detention  to  5  pages  clearly  demonstrate  various  

details  about  the  involvement  of  the  detenue  violating  the  

provisions  of  IPC,  A.P.  Act  and  the  Rules.   The  details  

furnished  in  the  grounds  of  detention  clearly  show  the  

application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.  It  

is  not  the  case  of  the  detenue  or  the  appellant  that  the  

required  relevant  and  relied  on  materials  have  not  been  

furnished  which  prevented  him  from  making  effective  

representation to the Government. The detailed report of the  

Inspector of Police and Sponsoring Authority clearly show that  

1

the detenue was a master mind in organising the felling of red-

sanders trees owned by the Government and also providing  

vehicles for illegally transporting the red-sanders wood, hiring  

of labourers from the fringe forest villages and responsible for  

destruction of valuable governmental property.  It also shows  

that  it  was  he  who  operated  gang  for  destruction  of  the  

national  wealth  causing  deforestation  leading  to  ecological  

imbalance affecting the community as a whole.  The grounds  

of  detention  also  show  that  the  Detaining  Authority,  after  

scrutinising all the details including various orders of arrest  

and  release,  bail  on  various  dates  and  noting  that  he  is  

habitually indulging in trespass in forest area, illicit cutting,  

felling,  smuggling  and  transporting  red-sanders  from  the  

reserved  forest  owned  by  the  State,  arrived  at  a  definite  

conclusion  that  the  provisions  of  normal  law  were  not  

sufficient  in  ordinary  course  to  deal  firmly  because  of  his  

habitual nature and after satisfying all aspects including the  

fact  that  the  detenue  was  in  jail  from  09.10.2010  to  

10.11.2010  and  the  factum  of  release  from  the  jail  in  4  

criminal cases, passed an order of detention with a view to  

1

prevent him from further indulging into such offences.  In a  

matter of detention, the law is clear that as far as subjective  

satisfaction is concerned, it should either be reflected in the  

detention  order  or  in  the  affidavit  justifying  the  detention  

order.   Once the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied  

about  the  various  offences  labelled  against  the  detenue,  

habituality  in  continuing  the  same,  difficult  to  control  him  

under  the  normal  circumstances,  he  is  free  to  pass  

appropriate order under Section 3 of the 1986 Act by fulfilling  

the conditions stated therein.  We have already concluded that  

there is no infirmity either in the reasonings of the Detaining  

Authority or procedure followed by it.  We are also satisfied  

that the detenue was afforded adequate opportunity at every  

stage and there is no violation of any of the safeguards.  In  

these  circumstances,  we  reject  the  contention  raised  by  

learned senior counsel for the appellant.

14) Though  an  attempt  was  made  to  nullify  the  order  of  

detention by drawing our attention to  the  latest  decision of  

this Court reported in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011)  

1

5 SCC 244, on going through the factual position and orders  

therein  and  in  view  of  enormous  activities  of  the  detenue  

violating various provisions of IPC, the A.P. Act and the Rules,  

continuous  and  habituality  in  pursuing  the  same  type  of  

offences, damaging the wealth of the nation and taking note of  

the  abundant factual  details  as available  in  the grounds of  

detention  and  also  of  the  fact  that  all  the  procedures  and  

statutory  safeguards  have  been  fully  complied  with  by  the  

Detaining Authority, we are of the view that the said decision  

is not applicable to the case on hand.  On the other hand, we  

fully agree with the reasoning of the Detaining Authority as  

approved by the Government and upheld by the High Court.

2

15) In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in  

the appeal, consequently, the same is dismissed.    

………….…………………………J.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)                                   

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 9, 2011.  

2